Admissible Evidence In Law

Admissible evidence in a court of law is any statement, documentary, or tangible evidence that may be introduced to the judge or jury in order to establish or bolster a point put forward by a party to the proceedings.

Generally, in order for evidence to be admissible it must be relevant, without being prejudicial, and reliable.

Basically, if evidence is to be admitted at court, it must be relevant, material, and competent. To be considered relevant, it must have some reasonable tendency to help prove or disprove some fact. It need not make the fact certain, but at least it must tend to increase or decrease the likelihood of some fact. Once admitted as relevant evidence, the finder of fact (judge or jury) will determine the appropriate weight

Consideration of those facts will be supported by evidence so as to increase credibility. Evidence is a proof of facts, it is a way how to prove or disprove them. The rules on evidence must be distinguished some evidence is admissible in court and some evidence is inadmissible. If the evidence is inadmissible in court you will not be allowed to rely on it in your proceedings. The evidence which is admissible can have different weight depending on the type of evidence. Evidence includes witness evidence and evidence in the

Our initial reaction might be to say that all evidence should be treated equally, at least in terms of judging its relevance for the purposes of FRE 401. However, if we think about the way in which evidence is actually employed in litigation, and particularly in the context of the trial, and about the way in which proof is regarded, at and after trial, it seems that there are a number of asymmetries. These asymmetries may extend to our consideration of admissibility. A useful starting point is to consider the relationship between civil and criminal litigation. There are generally greater consequences, socially and physically, of criminal conviction compared with adverse civil judgment, and so we might expect that the rules of evidence in a criminal action are geared more towards reducing the risk of an erroneous outcome than they are in a civil action. In turn, the risk to the dignity of the court is greater where an erroneous judgment is criminal in nature, and so the court may be more reluctant to convict erroneously. This is not, however, a principle of universal application. For example, the United Kingdom 's Asylum and Immigration Tribunal, whose decisions may significantly affect the dignity of the individual, proceeds without reference to the legal rules of admissibility. Instead,